These renderings present a series of varying interpretations; which Stulman describes as a porous compound of boundless problems. While an explicit conversation between Yahweh and the prophet determines this passage to be a private lament, a recognition of a probable misunderstanding opens the question of the modality as a public or private complaint. There are other factors that change the modality of the text, which are found in vv13-14 in its relation with 17:3-4 as they are identical. Longman recognizes that while vv. 13-14 sound as if it is a reflection of the people of Judah, he believes that it only reflects the prophet, since there is no change in pronoun usage, nor a new antecedent (Longman 125). In opposition of this view is Floyd, who suggests that the complaint is public precisely because it is used elsewhere, which shows the “liturgical formulation from a communal complaint ritual” as it exists for all of Judah (Floyd
These renderings present a series of varying interpretations; which Stulman describes as a porous compound of boundless problems. While an explicit conversation between Yahweh and the prophet determines this passage to be a private lament, a recognition of a probable misunderstanding opens the question of the modality as a public or private complaint. There are other factors that change the modality of the text, which are found in vv13-14 in its relation with 17:3-4 as they are identical. Longman recognizes that while vv. 13-14 sound as if it is a reflection of the people of Judah, he believes that it only reflects the prophet, since there is no change in pronoun usage, nor a new antecedent (Longman 125). In opposition of this view is Floyd, who suggests that the complaint is public precisely because it is used elsewhere, which shows the “liturgical formulation from a communal complaint ritual” as it exists for all of Judah (Floyd